International Flag Counter

Posts Tagged ‘legal case’

.. the other day , Federal District judge Royce D. Lamberth bawled out the E.P.A. and its senior management . While he did not severely sanction the E.P.A. [at least , not yet] , he severely chastised the Agency and several senior officials . They were called on the carpet for gross political bias and bigotry , and were legally and financially sanctioned ..

.. the punitive sanctions are being held out as a meat – cleaver over the head of the Agency , in order to get its attention . While this judge has the case , the E.P.A. has no choice but to cough up the requested information . The current F.O.I.A. precedent also acts to hammer them into compliance , and promptly …

.. now , the ball is in the EPA ‘ s court , so to speak . How will they respond . Dawdling is not an option , because if they do , the Judge will be able to seize effective control of the E.P.A. . dOING so would also block any sue – and – settle antics without Lamberth knowing about it …

.. an excellent column by Kim Strassel [WSJ] points out that the career staff at the IRS initially followed the law , to the letter . That meant that it would be subsidies in state – based exchanges ONLY . The situation changes when it was kicked up for political backing to the highest levels of the Service …

.. at that level , the chief counsel [a political appointee] and the Commissioner [ditto] had a very serious problem . Most likely , they got heavy duty heat from the ObamaCraps at the White House . Guess What Happened ?? ..

.. the ruling changed . by July of 2011 , the ruling came out in its final form , having it as subsidies for ALL … a couple of weeks later , Professor Jonathan Alter of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland , Ohio and Micheal Cannon of the Cato Institute came out with their famous paper … [– note — it is available from the Social Science Research Network , and there is a link , [here]]

.. you would think that there are no court cases out there . There would be no way in order to reverse POTUS ‘ action , and crack down on his antics on misconduct in office …

.. Wrong ! …

.. there is this little matter of Az Dream Act Coalition (sic) v. Brewer . It is a case out in the loonie land of the judiciary , the 9th Appeals Circuit Court . Yeah , that one . So , what is it about ??

.. when POTUS pulled his stunt on D.A.C.A. (for the Dreamers) , Az Gov Jan Brewer retaliated . She made it explicitly clear that under Arizona law , illegal aliens were clearly ineligible to receive documernts such as Az driver licenses . They were not able to , already . Her E.O. made it more explicit . So , the coalition sued …

.. the Federal District Court in Phoenix said no . However , a 3 – judge panel of the 9th Circuit said yes , that Dreamers could get these government documents , such as driver licenses . Even though AZ law was clear on the subject , that they were ineligible , and thus not allowed …

.. I think that the U.S. Supreme Court could reach down to this court , grab the case , and fast – track it for briefs and arguments at the Supreme Court . Boy , would that set off a circus . It would , in addition to the likely impeachment inquiry that would result from such an order . People will think that potus WILL GO SMALL . iN THIS CASE …

.. in for a penny , in for a pound . I think that Obama will go for ” the gusto , ” and supposedly ” legalize ” as many people as he thinks that he can get away with ….

— [update] — well , His Lordship did do it , just but not as much as I expected . Also , now , Arizona has a new GOP governor [Douglas Ducey] who is just as committed to this case . This case is far closer to the US Supreme Court than anything else , so stay tuned …

.. Emory University has a real problem on its hands . The usual campus ‘ radicals ” are running wild , trying to bring pressure on the school to achieve their usual pet causes . They are also bring more pressure on the school . They want to act to crush any and all campus opposition to their agendas . However , they have a much bigger problem than they realize ..

.. It is legal . It is also constitutional . It is also moral . And those dummies [both the Administration and the radicals] had better wake up ..

.. Emory ” allows ” political speech by the act of those chalk drawings . Admittedly , it is a bit odd . But , they do allow it . As a result , they have to play fair to all sides . I repeat , to ALL sides . That includes the conservatives , as well ..

.. if they allow these drawings , then play fair . Also , no retaliation . None whatsoever . If there is retaliation , especially , there will be repercussions . Most likely , financial . But not just to the University , though . The individuals and groups will be nailed , as well ..

.. and , once again , the political leadership in the District ends up looking like a bunch of damn fools ..

.. a new case came up . No , it is not the original one [Palmer v. D.C.] , which struck down the District ‘ s clear gun rights ban . This one is much different . It was brought by 4 individuals , each of whom wanted to own a gun in the District of Columbia . As you might expect , the District ‘ s P.D. [under the new restrictive ” may issue ” gun law ] refused to issue each of these individuals a license to own a gun …

.. Big problem for the District , however . The U.S. Constitution allows for individuals to own and ” bear ” arms . Plain and Simple . Also , no ” Mother , may I ” about it …

“This conclusion should not be read to suggest that it would be inappropriate for the District of Columbia to enact a licensing mechanism that includes appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of handguns in public,” Judge Scullin said in his ruling. “The District of Columbia’s arbitrary ‘good reason’/’proper reason’ requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Well, that was the point. The district’s establishment wants to make it impossible or very nearly so for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights in the nation’s capital, and they calculated this law to leave themselves enough room to guarantee it. This particular effort was so bad, though, that it was doomed to failure, and should embarrass everyone associated with it. The law essentially said that constitutional rights can be rationed by government only on the basis that government sees a “good reason” to allow it. I’m pretty sure that’s not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the Bill of Rights.

The city tried to argue that the “good reason” requirement was connected to public safety, but Scullin rejected the argument :

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting). Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good 12 reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.

.. first Palmer , now this case . It is only a temporary injunction , but it is an injunction . To get one , you have to show a very strong likelihood that you will ” win on the merits . ” This one may well skip the D.C. Appeals Court , and go right to the U.S. Supreme Court ..

.. granted , it is the New York Slimes . So , take it with a grain of salt (or two) …

.. but , it is obvious that Ptl. Darren Wilson was seriously injured by this perpetrator (Michael Brown) . Brown was the aggressor . He attacked Wilson in his patrol car . He head – butted him . He punched him several times . Also , the perpetrator went for the gun , and there was a struggle for it . The gun went off several times …

.. so , the grand jury is going to be presented with a very serious problem . Is a police officer to be stripped of his right and ability to defend himself , especially if the perpetrator is the aggressor , and seriously injures an officer . The officer should then be justified in using appropriate lethal force to bring the suspect to justice ….

.. — [update] — there has been more information that has leaked out . it makes patrolman Darrren Wilson ‘ s story a good bit more believable . It also serves to discredit many of the eyewitnesses to the shooting . The plot thickens ….

.. just ask former senators Ben Nelson [Ne] and Max Baucus [Mt] . They both know the full truth . Nelson ‘ s is one of , if not the last . vote that was sought for the bill in the Senate . Baucus used to chair the Senate Finance Committee , and was the bill ‘ s principal congressional author …

.. this is a SCOTUS case from downstate Ohio . The Susan B. Anthony List ( a well – known pro – life group) wanted to challenge the honesty and veracity of a Congressional candidate [actually a sitting DemoCrap congresscritter] .. Well , the DemoCrap did not like it one bit . He challenged it in front of a body called the Ohio Elections Commission . The O.E.C. found that the ad was supposedly ” false , ” and fined the List a small amount of money . The case though was dropped when the DemoCrap lost his re – election big …

.. Well , the Susan B. Anthony List did not forget . They sued in federal court , challenging the constitutionality of the Ohio statute . The US Supreme Court ruled today , unaminously , that the action of the O.E.C. was unconstitutional …

.. Now , the List can continue in the federal court . What they may want to do is to challenge the constitutionality of the basic statute , now that they have won the underlying original case …

.. doing it on the federal level might be illegal . Albeit some co – ordination is permitted . Wisconsin laws evidently are quite different ..

.. the ” John Doe ” prosecutors are quite sore that they had their supposed investigation shut down . It was a clear abuse of 1st Amendment rights , and the federal appeals court called them on it . The surprise is the Club for Growth …

.. I am a little bit surprised that the Club for Growth wanted the documents that the prosecutors accumulated disclosed . The documents would appear to be put in the worst light , making the Club and Gov Walker look bad . Their conduct might even look illegal . However , it was not , and it never was , even before the Citizens United case . The disclosure was a smart move . It mitigates any attempt at spin by anyone during this year ‘ s campaign , or in the future . Now , Gov Walker and the club for growth are in the clear , and have nothing to worry about …

.. the idiots on the court may try to play fast and cute with the case in order to speed it up or especially to slow it down . The cast of characters on the Supreme Court could well change before the case gets there . If it does , then the potential outcome could change drastically …

.. Right now , I can see it going 6 – 3 (conservatives , plus Breyer) , or possibly 6 – 2 (ditto , minus Kagan , since this started when she was Solicitor General) …

.. what initially I am referring to was Hobby Lobby v Sebelius . That was the current case that was at the U.S. Supreme Court only a couple of days ago …

.. this is a different case . It is one that is at a court at a different level , at the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals . It is Halbing v . Sebelius , one of a number of legal challenges that are still in the works to ObamaCrapCare . Jonathan Keim of National Review ‘ s Bench Memos has an excellent take of the legal combat [here] …

.. if I were an ObamaCrap , I would be sweating this one , just like if I were them , i would be sweating out the outcome of Hobby Lobby at the U.S. Supreme Court . From the verbal combat , from what I have read in various places , this one is likely to come out in favour of halbig in a 2 to 1 decision . You might ask …

.. Did not POTUS pack the D.C. Appeals Court with 3 of his nominees , courtesy of Dingy Harry Reid ? Yes , he did . Appeals Court cases are heard by a 3 – judge panel , first . Then , after that , if the Court so decides , it can hear it ” en banc . ” Usually , that means the full court , but not always . Also , the U.S. Supreme Court will be well aware of this case . More likely than not , the Supremes could opt to hear the case themselves , thus taking it away from the full court …

.. I would think and bet on a 2 – 1 decision for Halbig . Also , I think that the Supremes will act to take the case away from the full court , given the immorality of the court packing done by Dingy Harry Reid ….

.. — Note — this stuff by Amy Howe of ScotusBlog helps bring the dry rigamarole of law and legal arguments into plain English . It tries to translate the legal schtuff that most folks (even me , sometimes) do not always understand , and bring it to everyday folks in a simpler and plainer manner , especially less verbose …

.. back to the wars — women can still get their health insurance and their benefits . It is just that they will not be able to get their corporate bosses to finance the abortion – related part of it , the public financing of which is already illegal under federal law .

.. also , it is a substantial burden to force people over their moral objections to pay for things that for which they have substantial and paraamount moral objections to , such as abortion and abortifacient drugs . It is not that women cannot get them . The companies are not interfering in that . It is that the government cannot force individuals , either directly (as a sole proprietorship or partnership) or as a corporation (indirectly) to violate their firmly held First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and finance something that for which they have sincerely and deeply held moral objections …

… whatever may happen in Europe will likely start in Germany with their highest court . Why ? a number of their constitutional law professors have challenged the bailouts , as well as the mechanisms that the national governments have been using . and the demand keeps growing . and , they do need Germany , with its deep pockets …

… however , they may not have it . If their court says no , in full , or in part , Germany will effectively be out of the bailout business . I think that this court may well say no , at least in part …

… in Germany , especially , given its recent history (who can forget , and no one should) , they need to stick to their rule of law more than anyone , and avoid legal finesse …

… but , the consequences for Germany , Europe , the EU , and for everyone else may be telling ….

this part is very esoteric to most folks , but it is quite simple. the ObamaCrapCare Act is seeking to dragoon our states and blackmail them into adding millions of people to the Medicaid rolls, with little (3 years) aid from a Federal Government that cannot afford it.

Also, in particular many states either have just or are about to get their financial books back in balance, and adding so many people (as the Mother of All Unfunded Mandates) is going to put them effectively into bankruptcy, or pretty close to it.

If the whole bill (part 3) comes about, then the states will not have to worry, but even if it does, i believe that the Supreme Court will decide on this part of the case, nonetheless. They would not have set things up this way, if they were not planning to make a decision.

I am not entirely sure, but I think that they will decide (5-4, or 6-3) to strike this part down. Having states meet financial requirements for aid from the feds is one thing, but dragooning them into effective bankruptcy by threating their ENTIRE Medicaid funding is something else .